I find that it helps to not have a idea of what a character should look like
[In reply to]

Can't Post

Regardless of the physical descriptions given in the books, I'm one of those people who when reading a novel, I try to picture the characters and all I get is silhouettes or nothing. Of course, if that book is made into a movie, when I read the book after the release of its film counterpart, I will probably picture the characters as featured in the film. This was the case with the Harry Potter films, once the first movie came out, Harry, Ron and Hermione became Radcliffe, Grint and Watson when I read the books, as opposed to staying as shadows in my mind's eye.

This is probably why I'm a lot more relaxed than most Tolkienites about the appearance of not only Thorin, but all the Dwarves. Although sometimes not being able to picture a character when you're reading a book can be annoying, it certainly leads to a lack of expectation when that character becomes immortalised on the silver screen. Many of the posters on this board seem to be unable to get past the difference between their Thorin and Pj's Thorin. I simply ask why make a big deal about it? It's not the end of the world if someone's interpretation of a character is different to yours, and just because PJ's Thorin will be appearing in a phenomenally expensive Hollywood film doesn't make it the definative one.

As for the palaver about Ian McShane vs Richard Armitage, if you prefer McShane as Thorin, no-one's stopping you from picturing him when you read the books. To Flagg, no need to get so defensive against those who disagree, they're not attacking your choice, they're simply saying that he's not who they picture as Thorin.